Friday, September 18, 2015

Over three years ago we wrote “Why Crazy Might Be Best in 2012” in which we made the case that nominating the most bat-shit crazy Republican would open up a window for a rational, reasonable and moderate independent to fill the rather large middle ground and win the presidency.

As we know, Governor Romney won the nomination, and as one of the least bat-shit crazy candidates, the space for a viable independent candidate never materialized.

However, in 2016 we’ve hit the bat-shit crazy jackpot. If current polls hold (they won’t but humor us for a minute) we could have TWO bat-shit crazy nominees, one on each side! This would almost certainly leave an enormous void in the middle for a reasonable and rational candidate to step into the race and finally break the two-party stranglehold on government.

The old adage is that you have to bottom-out before you can change your ways. We can’t think of a worse bottoming-out than a presidential election pitting an arrogant and brash right-wing reality TV star against a self-identified socialist who had to run for the Senate as an Independent because he was too far to the left to win the Democratic nomination.

As of August 2015, Gallop cites that 41% of Americans identify themselves as Independents. 41%! That leaves 27% as Republicans and 31% as Democrats. On the right, even if we assume Donald Trump has the undying support of 50% of Republicans (he doesn’t and never will) that’s only 13.5% of the population as a whole. Similarly, even if 50% of Democrats provide full-throated support for Bernie Sanders, that’s only 15.5% of the population. This leaves 71% of the population up for grabs. 71%! Even if half of these Independents feel like they need to vote Republican or Democrat, 35% would be a plurality and a path to the White House.

Independents have struggled to gain traction in presidential races against the big, bad and well funded political parties. But with 71% of the vote up for grabs, and two bat-shit crazy and therefore highly vulnerable opponents, someone would step in to fill the void.

Nothing would make us happier.

What if after the next idiotic comment from Mr. Trump or any of the other old, white males vying for the Republican nomination, Carly Fiorina stepped to the stage and said:

“I’d like to respond directly to the comments made by Mr. Trump and Mr. X (fill in the blank for idiotic white male) on gay marriage, abortion, and immigration. I’ve had enough. The American people have had enough. The Republican Party is stuck in the past, unwilling to move forward and embrace our evolving cultural realities. If the definition of a Republican includes denying a loving gay couple the right to marriage, a woman the right to choose, or a path to citizenship for a 12 year old girl brought to the US by her parents for a better life, it’s not my Party. Which is a shame, because I am a firm believer in Republican principles with regards to fiscal and economic matters, but I can no longer overlook the party’s pathetic record and progress on social issues. As of this moment, I’m announcing my candidacy for President of the United States as an Independent. The President should not be beholden to the rigid orthodoxies of any single political party. The President should be free to make the best decisions for the country and its citizens, not the one the best fits the Party platform. So to all of the Republican’s who are embarrassed to identify as such at cocktail parties because of the Party’s out-dated social views, I’d like your vote. To all of the Democrats excited about the progress towards equality in our society, but worried about passing along a fiscal disaster to your kids and grandkids, I’d like your vote. To anyone who believes in a government run by facts and unbiased analysis, rather than rigid Party politics, I’d like your vote. To anyone wanting to focus on our bright future rather than lamenting about years past, I’d like your vote. I’m Carly Fiorina and I’m running for President of the United States.”

In a contest between Ms. Fiorina, Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders, a Ms. Fiorina free from the Republican stench would win in a landslide.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Most criticism of the NFL has been aimed at player safety, concussions in particular, and player behavior off the field, highlighted by some high profile domestic abuse cases. Both are issues that require attention, but neither issue impacts the experience of watching an NFL game.

The real problem facing the NFL and its ability to keep its stadiums full and TV ratings strong, is the rulebook. For a game built around watching enormous human beings pushing themselves to their physical limits of strength, agility and aggressiveness, it’s too often the old men in pinstripes with the most influence over the result of a game. Ticky-tack penalties and obscure rule infractions often overshadow the incredible athleticism of the players on the field.

NFL viewers tune in to see Dez Bryant make acrobatic catches at the goal line with a trip to the conference finals hanging in the balance. We tune in to watch JJ Watt burst through offensive lines for a huge sack on a key third down. We tune in to watch Richard Sherman scratch and claw to keep the ball out of Calvin Johnson’s hands.

Unfortunately, the first question we ask after these plays is “was there a flag?” And far too often, the answer is yes, erasing that play from history.

When these penalties occur, it kills the flow of the game, negates the skill and athleticism of the players and fills the aggrieved team and its fans with rage, and rightfully so. Andrew Sharp does an excellent job dissecting this outrage on Grantland.com using the Dez Bryant catch (or non-catch as the case may be) as an example.

After Bryant’s acrobatic catch, the opposing coach challenges the call and we’re forced to sit through 538 replays in a feeble attempt to apply nonsensical rules to a bang-bang play on a frame-by-frame basis. Then the referee comes back and negates the play using rules devoid of logic. That huge sack is overturned because Watt, after getting pushed, shoved and otherwise harassed by a 300-lbs lineman, happens to graze the QB’s helmet with his pinky, drawing a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Sherman’s incredible coverage of Johnson draws a penalty because Matthew Stafford horrendously under-throws a pass, making it look like Sherman stops Johnson from coming back to the ball, drawing a 40-yard pass interference penalty.

In a well played and officiated game, you don’t even notice the referees. Can you remember watching an NFL game where you didn’t notice the referees? We can’t. Between the booth reviews, the incessant defensive holding and illegal contact penalties, the over-calling of pass interference and the over protection of quarterback and wide receivers, the referees control an ever growing proportion of the game. The average Dad in the stands didn’t pay $500 to take his kid to watch referees throw yellow hankies all over the place or sit through long reviews, and the 7 year old watching at home and wondering why his team scored a touchdown, but isn’t allowed to keep the points, might give up and just go back to his Clash of Clans village.

So what should the NFL do about it?

Our thoughts:

1. Instant replay should be limited to 40 seconds and run out of NFL headquarters (like baseball and hockey). If coaches and quarterbacks have to make decisions within the confines of a 40 second play clock, so should the referees. If the seasoned referees in the replay booth can’t overturn the play based on a couple of replays, the call on the field stands. The purpose of replay is not to dissect each play on a frame-by-frame basis, it’s to ensure that egregious mistakes are remedied. 40 seconds is plenty of time to determine if an obvious mistake has been made.

2. A catch equals control and two feet (or one elbow, knee, rear end) in bounds. That’s it. The entire rule about controlling through the process is thrown out. The idea that if the ball touches the ground at any point during the catch it’s not a catch is also thrown out. If a player has control of the ball, and is in bounds, it’s a catch. That’s it. All fumble rules apply after that point.

3. The pass interference rules need to be radically overhauled. First, pass interference should only be a spot foul if it’s egregious enough to be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. If the defender is beat and their only chance to prevent a touchdown is to tackle the receiver before the ball arrives, that’s unsportsmanlike conduct and a spot foul. If the foul is just a bit of sloppy defending or poor timing, it’s a 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down. This works in college, no reason it can’t work in the NFL. Lastly, pass interference cannot be called on an underthrown ball. The controversial non-call against the Dallas Cowboys in the wild card round is a perfect example of this rule. Under this proposal, the non-call would have been correct and uncontroversial because the ball was badly underthrown, forcing the tight end to try and stop his forward motion and reach back downfield to try and catch the ball. A quarterback’s bad throw shouldn’t be rewarded with a pass interference call.

4. We’re all for player safety, but the ticky-tack personal foul calls need to stop, particularly on plays involving quarterbacks and wide receivers. I don’t think this requires a rule change, but the commissioner should issue an Obama-like executive order instructing the referees to only enforce in obviously dangerous and intentional hits, not every glance of the helmet. As an offset, players are no longer just fined for dangerous hits, they should also be suspended more liberally - even if its just for a quarter, a half or multiple games. A player is much more sensitive to missing game time as he is to missing Benjamin's. The NHL model would work well here - i.e. player can appeal, and all decisions are announced promptly and publically with a full explanation.

5. Coaches should be able to challenge an announced personal foul penalty (i.e. you cannot challenge anything that was not called) or for/against the unsportsmanlike conduct version of pass interference on any pass play (i.e. you can either challenge the penalty, or challenge the non-call). These are currently the only two game changing plays that are not reviewable, but they should be.

6. Illegal shift, illegal formation, illegal motion, ineligible man down field, and ineligible receivers – all of these random rules are revoked – except illegal forward motion – that can stay in the CFL and Arena league. Who cares how many players are lined up on the line of scrimmage? Who cares if the left tackle catches a pass? Who cares if two players are in motion during the snap? What’s the harm in the center sprinting down the field before a pass is thrown?

These changes put the game back in the hands of the players and coaches, exactly where it belongs.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

We need to stop calling the leaders of media outlets who decide not to republish the
Charlie Hebdo cartoons "cowards.”

Any reasonable person knows that free speech is a right to be
celebrated and defended. Unfortunately, we live in a world filled with
unreasonable people, who do unreasonable things for unreasonable reasons.
Wednesday’s demented exercise of religious vigilantism in Paris is an example
of such an action.

For those that beat their chest from the comfort of their
twitter account and call a media outlet cowardly for deciding not to publish a
cartoon, I urge you to put yourself in their shoes. If you’re in charge
of a newsroom full of tens, if not hundreds of mothers, fathers, sisters,
brothers, sons and daughters, is the publication of a certain cartoon worth endangering
the well-being of even a single employee or the viability of a business that employs tens, hundreds or thousands of people?

This is not a crisis of free speech. This is a question of making choices that are
best for specific organizations and their employees. In fact, deciding not to publish the cartoons
is an equally reasonable exercise in free speech as is the decision to publish the
cartoons.

Is it horrible and tragic that an editor needs to worry about
religious fanatics storming his newsroom and executing his staff over a
published cartoon? Absolutely. But if your mother, father, son or
daughter were in that newsroom, what would you want that editor to do?

For us, it’s a no-brainer. We cover the story in depth but
let our readers find the cartoon elsewhere if they so choose – something that anyone
with a remote control or an internet connection and the ability to spell Google
and Charlie Hebdo can accomplish in about 5 seconds. Would we feel good about our decision? No, but would we feel worse if a single
employee was injured in part because of our decision to publish the
cartoon? Yes.

For clarity, this is how we would exercise or right to free speech in this situation, it does not mean we think reprinting the cartoon is wrong. Publishing the cartoons is an equally
reasonable exercise free speech. To suggest that either decision is right/wrong or courageous/cowardly is the real attack on free speech.

We find criticizing free speech on the grounds that it’s not the
right kind of free speech problematic, and the reactions to those who decide not to
reprint Charlie Hebdo cartoons are just the latest example in this growing and disturbing phenomenon.